China's "Underground Great Wall" can simultaneously accommodate two trains and can switch tracks.

2) The 20 silo-based "city-buster" DF-5 ICBMs (i.e. 4 to 5 megatons) alone can destroy 20 American cities. If you annihilate the top 20 American cities, you are talking about roughly 30 million dead plus nuclear fallout. This is called nuclear deterrence.

Kanwa was informed that the development of train-borne DF31 ICBM is already completed, and the deployment of these missiles has also been prepared. The development of DF31A, a upgraded version of DF31, has also already been completed.

In order to further enhance the mobile nuclear striking power and the capability to survive attacks, China has developed new types of DF31 series ICBMs similar to the former Soviet Union train-borne SS-24. In normal days, these missiles are moved along the railroads, while at time of war, they can be transported to selected sites and then launch nuclear assaults upon the enemy. DF31 is manufactured in Sichuan at Sichuan Areospace Industry Corporation. Reliable sources from China military industry say the major difference between DF31 and DF31A lies in their warheads. The former has single warhead, while the latter has multi-warheads."

4) China has Type 094 submarines carrying JL-2 SLBMs.

China's most-powerful Jin-class SSBN nuclear deterrent.

5) Nuclear-capable DH-10 cruise missiles have been added to the Chinese nuclear arsenal.

6) I'm not trying to beat a dead horse. However, for the sake of completeness, I want to point out that "It is likely that a number of PRC cargo ships carry CSS-9 missiles to act as a sea-based nuclear response/strike force."

"The CSS-9 is an effective strategic system that has significantly increased the PRC’s nuclear strike capabilities. Though the PRC’s land-based systems are unable to directly threaten much beyond the west coast of the United States, the CSS-9 is a modern ICBM system that threatens Russia and India, two major PRC rivals. However, the CSS-9 missile system can easily reach all of the US with the placement aboard cargo ships disguised as shipping containers. The self-contained launch system could easily be placed on a PRC ship and launched against targets in the US. It is likely that a number of PRC cargo ships carry CSS-9 missiles to act as a sea-based nuclear response/strike force. Similarly, these containers could be smuggled into and stored in PRC controlled warehouses throughout the Americas. The modular nature of these modern missile systems makes them extremely dangerous since they do not need to follow tradition missile tactics. Even with modern satellite systems, the combination of hidden road and cross-country mobile launchers, missile silos, and rail/ship launchers make it impossible to destroy most of these missiles prior to launch."

7) China is developing the HN-2000 stealth cruise missile with a terminal supersonic phase. Just like the DH-10 cruise missile, it is reasonable to expect that the HN-2000 will also be nuclear-capable. See http://project2049.n...ise_missile.pdf

"Global Strike and the Chinese Anti-Ship Cruise Missile: HN-2000

China is currently developing its next-generation cruise missile, the Hong Niao-2000 (HN-2000). This missile will reportedly be equipped with millimeter wave radar, infrared image mapping, laser radar, synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) and the Chinese Beidou satellite guidance system, for accuracies of 1-3 meters. This missile will also incorporate the latest stealth technologies and have a supersonic terminal flight phase, with an expected range of 4,000km."

8) Have you ever watched the movie "WarGames"? A nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. will cause both nations to launch an all-out attack on all countries of the world. Russia and the U.S. will not foolishly destroy only each other and let China become the de facto superpower.

Similarly, in a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and China, China has plenty of thermonuclear SRBMs and IRBMs (especially the ones located in Tibet). China will "wipe out" most Russian cities. In retaliation, the Russians will take everyone else with them. Just as it was depicted in WarGames, Russian nuclear missiles will radiate to every major city in the world. Everybody dies, except for the lucky few in underground military facilities built to withstand a nuclear war.

In essence, China can "borrow" the Russian nuclear arsenal in the final exchange against the U.S. The Russians are not going to let the U.S. become the de facto superpower survivor.

More than 50 launch pads for nuclear ballistic missiles have been identified scattered across a 2,000 square kilometer (772 square miles) area of central China, according to analysis of satellite images.

By Hans M. Kristensen

Analysis of new commercial satellite photos has identified an extensive deployment area with nearly 60 launch pads for medium-range nuclear ballistic missiles in Central China near Delingha and Da Qaidam.

The region has long been rumored to house nuclear missiles and I have previously described some of the facilities in a report and a blog. But the new analysis reveals a significantly larger deployment area than previously known, different types of launch pads, command and control facilities, and missile deployment equipment at a large facility in downtown Delingha.

The U.S. government often highlights China’s deployment of new mobile missiles as a concern but keeps the details secret, so the discovery of the deployment area provides the first opportunity for the public to better understand how China operates its mobile ballistic missiles."

The Chinese Red dragon’s reach has scared the pants off the Indian elephant. Many have predicted a war between India and China within the next few years. Some called that prediction alarmist. First there were repeated statements from Delhi that China was their biggest enemy and threat. Then news stories that China has built a huge infrastructure on the undefined and undemarcated Mcmohan line (the de factor border between India and China). Now the escalating tensions are sounding alarm bells around the world. The Federation of American Scientist has just published pictures of Chinese missiles which can target all of India. The incompetent intelligence agencies of India didn’t have a clue about the missiles. Any high school drop out could have paid a commercial satellite a nickel and gotten the pictures of the satellites. The fact that the FAS pictures has so unnerved Delhi that it has decided to form to new intelligence agencies is a subject of much discussion around the world..."

Regarding the discussion on whether China has an adequate number of nuclear ICBMs, I don't believe that this problem has been overlooked by the competent government of China.

5) I'm not trying to beat a dead horse. However, for the sake of completeness, I want to point out that "It is likely that a number of PRC cargo ships carry CSS-9 missiles to act as a sea-based nuclear response/strike force."

"The CSS-9 is an effective strategic system that has significantly increased the PRC’s nuclear strike capabilities. Though the PRC’s land-based systems are unable to directly threaten much beyond the west coast of the United States, the CSS-9 is a modern ICBM system that threatens Russia and India, two major PRC rivals. However, the CSS-9 missile system can easily reach all of the US with the placement aboard cargo ships disguised as shipping containers. The self-contained launch system could easily be placed on a PRC ship and launched against targets in the US. It is likely that a number of PRC cargo ships carry CSS-9 missiles to act as a sea-based nuclear response/strike force. Similarly, these containers could be smuggled into and stored in PRC controlled warehouses throughout the Americas. The modular nature of these modern missile systems makes them extremely dangerous since they do not need to follow tradition missile tactics. Even with modern satellite systems, the combination of hidden road and cross-country mobile launchers, missile silos, and rail/ship launchers make it impossible to destroy most of these missiles prior to launch."

Excellent point, something that most likely does exist. Still, the numbers would probably not add up to an absolute deterrent, I'm just saying. I will point out again, I'm not suggesting China at this point in its development should attain an absolute deterrent and fully agree with it's leaderships decisions regarding this.

QUOTE (Martian @ Apr 1 2010, 12:02 AM)

7) Have you ever watched the movie "WarGames"? A nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. will cause both nations to launch an all-out attack on all countries of the world. Russia and the U.S. will not foolishly destroy only each other and let China become the de facto superpower.

Similarly, in a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and China, China has plenty of thermonuclear SRBMs and IRBMs (especially the ones located in Tibet). China will "wipe out" most Russian cities. In retaliation, the Russians will take everyone else with them. Just as it was depicted in WarGames, Russian nuclear missiles will radiate to every major city in the world. Everybody dies, except for the lucky few in underground military facilities built to withstand a nuclear war.

In essence, China can "borrow" the Russian nuclear arsenal in the final exchange against the U.S. The Russians are not going to let the U.S. become the de facto superpower survivor.

I've heard this theory before and it makes no sense to me. To prevent a 3rd power from becoming the sole superpower, either the U.S. or Russia or both nuke everybody so the world goes to hell to preserve their lost power position sounds like the demented ramblings of Cold Warriors to me. If the "others" to be nuked by either side were leaning on one or the other side, then there is some substance to this theory, but if you're talking in today's world with China, Russia, U.S, Japan, EU, it no longer makes sense because these countries are not as ideologically polarized as the world once was. China and Russia are sort of allies of convenience, I mean Russia sells arms to India who is constantly giving not so subtle threats directly against China. The EU is mostly isolationist if were not for the influence of the UK who are indeed sycophants of American policy. I don't agree a 2-way nuclear war would involve anybody but the 2 countries involved. The only possible exception to this is India who might join in a joint nuclear attack against China. India basically doesn't know what it's doing so with India anything goes.

Excellent point, something that most likely does exist. Still, the numbers would probably not add up to an absolute deterrent, I'm just saying. I will point out again, I'm not suggesting China at this point in its development should attain an absolute deterrent and fully agree with it's leaderships decisions regarding this.

I've heard this theory before and it makes no sense to me. To prevent a 3rd power from becoming the sole superpower, either the U.S. or Russia or both nuke everybody so the world goes to hell to preserve their lost power position sounds like the demented ramblings of Cold Warriors to me. If the "others" to be nuked by either side were leaning on one or the other side, then there is some substance to this theory, but if you're talking in today's world with China, Russia, U.S, Japan, EU, it no longer makes sense because these countries are not as ideologically polarized as the world once was. China and Russia are sort of allies of convenience, I mean Russia sells arms to India who is constantly giving not so subtle threats directly against China. The EU is mostly isolationist if were not for the influence of the UK who are indeed sycophants of American policy. I don't agree a 2-way nuclear war would involve anybody but the 2 countries involved. The only possible exception to this is India who might join in a joint nuclear attack against China. India basically doesn't know what it's doing so with India anything goes.

Admittedly, the WarGames scenario is a little long in the tooth. As you say, the world has changed dramatically in the last 20 years since the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991. Alliances, strategies, and attitudes have indeed changed significantly. I will have to think of another plausible method for China to borrow Russia's ICBM arsenal in an all-out nuclear war. Perhaps I can invoke a secret alliance treaty between China and Russia or a future mutual defense clause in the SCO treaty.

If that fails, I'll just have China build 10 more SSBNs and put a few of them under the Arctic ice caps. It's strange but these war scenarios just aren't as exciting during these peaceful times among major powers. To sound more reasonable, perhaps I'll postulate China building only five more SSBNs.

The 094 SSBNs aren't sophiscated like the Ohio class, so there is no need to build 10 of them.

PLAN is now focusing on type 096 which can presumably carry 24 SLBMs of JL-2A or so.

Compared to type 096, type 094 is a mere experiment(a platform that used to test JL-2/JL-2A) as it is the first SSBN that carries the SLBM that can perform a reliable second strike capability on US.

The reason that type 094 can only carry 12 SLBMs is simply because the platform of the SSBN was designed back in early 1990s, which is loosely based on the design of type 092. The hump is getting bigger is because that JL-2 is getting much bigger than JL-1. At that time, China was way too much behind in technologies of both vessel platform and SLBM, so it had to catch up technology of SLBM first, then the platform. Everything cannot be done at once.

The platform design of type 096 will base on the shipbuilding technology of today's China, no wonder that the platform would get bigger enough to carry more SLBMs.

The 094 SSBNs aren't [sophisticated] like the Ohio class, so there is no need to build 10 of them.

PLAN is now focusing on type 096 which can presumably carry 24 SLBMs of JL-2A or so.

Compared to type 096, type 094 is a mere experiment(a platform that used to test JL-2/JL-2A) as it is the first SSBN that carries the SLBM that can perform a reliable second strike capability on US.

The reason that type 094 can only carry 12 SLBMs is simply because the platform of the SSBN was designed back in early 1990s, which is loosely based on the design of type 092. The hump is getting bigger is because that JL-2 is getting much bigger than JL-1. At that time, China was way too much behind in technologies of both vessel platform and SLBM, so it had to catch up technology of SLBM first, then the platform. Everything cannot be done at once.

The platform design of type 096 will base on the shipbuilding technology of today's China, no wonder that the platform would get bigger enough to carry more SLBMs.

You raise a very good point. Perhaps the reason that we don't see a massive build-up in China's second-strike capability is because China is waiting for its technology to fully mature. If China's Type 096 proves to be comparable to the Ohio-class SSBNs then we may indeed see China build 14 of them to reach parity with the U.S.

Currently, China has the plan to move her future SSBN base to South China Sea from Bohai Sea and Yellow Sea. Because South China Sea has deep water that is sufficient to allow those big SSBNs (10,000 tonnes+) to remain stealthy. Whereas Bohai Sea and Yellow Sea have shallow water which cannot cover the SSBN that is no more than 10,000 tonnes considering that type 092 is only 6,000-8,000 tonnes and 8,000-10,000 tonnes for type 094.

But the only disadvantage to put the SSBNs in the South China Sea is being closer to equator which needs longer range of SLBM to cover the entire region of USA.

Now I can imagine that type 096 could be a quite large SSBN (perhaps between 16,000-20,000 tonnes) that cannot be hidden in the Bohai Sea and the Yellow Sea which also needs a longer range of SLBM in order to be able to reach anywhere of USA. Most likely it would be equipped with the modified/advanced version of JL-2 (JL-2A) which possesses a range of 10,000-12,000 km with a full payload.

In the above post, I listed the broad range of known delivery vehicles for "China's Nuclear Strike Force." One of the most well-kept secrets on the planet is the size of China's thermonuclear arsenal. The Pentagon has no idea how to deal with China unless it knows with certainty the size of China's nuclear deterrent.

Let's review some key facts.

1) China was the fourth nation in the world to explode a thermonuclear weapon in 1967, ahead of the French.

2) China launched her first satellite into space in 1970.

3) Putting (1) and (2) together, China has possessed the capability to build thermonuclear-tipped ICBMs for 40 years. Over the years, China has improved her miniaturization technology to the point of building a W-88 class warhead by the 1980s.

We also know that China has demonstrated the ability to send multiple satellites into space on one rocket. This dual-use technology is the basis for MIRVed ICBMs.

The point is that China has been able to build advanced MIRVed thermonuclear ICBMs for at least twenty to thirty years.

5) The key question that everyone wants answered is: how much "smaller" is the Chinese nuclear arsenal? Are China's nuclear warheads closer to 200 or 2,000 in number? The U.S. wants to know.

Hence, the latest clever political move to pressure China to disclose the number and locations of her nuclear arsenal. The U.S. has disclosed the total number of its nuclear warheads (which we all knew numbered in the many thousands) and now it wants to know China's big secret.

For the last 40 years, has China been sitting on her hands and doing "not much"? Or, as many suspect, how big of a nuclear arsenal has China built in secret over the last 40 years?

(Reuters) - Lack of transparency surrounding China's nuclear programs raises questions about its strategic intentions, the United States said on Tuesday.

Barack Obama | China

"China's nuclear arsenal remains much smaller than the arsenals of Russia and the United States," the administration said in a nuclear policy document published on Tuesday.

"But the lack of transparency surrounding its nuclear programs -- their pace and scope, as well as the strategy and doctrine that guides them -- raises questions about China's future strategic intentions."

"The United States and China's Asian neighbors remain concerned about the pace and scope of China's current military modernization efforts, including its quantitative and qualitative modernization of its nuclear capabilities," it said.

China last month unveiled its 2010 military budget with a spending hike of 7.5 percent, a relatively low figure that surprised outside analysts after more than two decades of double-digit rises.

The U.S. report reiterated the Pentagon's oft-stated wish to hold a strategic dialogue with the Chinese military that would "provide a venue and mechanism for each side to communicate its views about the other's strategies, policies, and programs on nuclear weapons and other strategic capabilities."

"The goal of such a dialogue is to enhance confidence, improve transparency, and reduce mistrust," the report added.

China ended weeks of uncertainty last week when it announced that President Hu Jintao would attend a summit next week on nuclear security in Washington.

China had previously delayed saying whether Hu would participate in the multinational meeting hosted by President Barack Obama. U.S.-China ties have recently been clouded by economic and political disputes.

Washington angered Beijing by announcing a $6.4 billion arms package for Taiwan early this year, and China responded by postponing several high-level exchanges between U.S. and Chinese military leaders.

But China did not freeze all military-to-military contacts as it did in response to previous U.S. arms deals with Taiwan.

China pledged Tuesday "extreme restraint" in its nuclear development, as the US revealed Monday the size of its nuclear stockpile, whilst warning about isolation for any state that defies the current disarmament trend.

The Pentagon disclosed that the US holds 5,113 nuclear warheads as of September 30, including operationally operated warheads, both in active and inactive reserves, an 84 percent curtail from the 31,225 in 1967 and a 75 percent cut from the 22,217 in 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell.

The figures, the first official disclosure of the half-century-long top secret, were released as the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference unfolds, at which US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted that this revelation serves to enhance transparency concerning the US arsenal and which is conducive to urging other nuclear-armed states to follow suit.

China was specifically singled out, as a senior US defense official renewed calls for greater transparency by China, saying there was "little visibility" when it came to Beijing's nuclear program, Reuters reported.

Zhang Zhaozhong, director of the Science and Technology Research Division of the National Defense University, rebuffed the US claim of China's lack of a transparent policy concerning the nuclear arsenal as unsubstantiated.

"On the contrary, the publicized figure is merely shrouded tactics, as the US holds at least 9,000 nuclear warheads," Zhang added.

"China will continue to maintain nuclear power at the lowest level, only for national security needs. We are willing to make joint efforts with the relevant countries toward nuclear disarmament and a nuclear-weapons-free world," the spokeswoman added."

[Note: PDF does not permit dynamic images. I found a similar image to the one in the Reuter's article.]

2) The 20 silo-based "city-buster" ICBMs (i.e. 1 to 4 megatons) alone can destroy 20 American cities. If you annihilate the top 20 American cities, you are talking about roughly 30 million dead plus nuclear fallout. This is called nuclear deterrence.

and u live in boston... i assume u r chinese living in america boston... if there ever was all out war between china vs usa u be killed by ur fellow country men... i just like to point out the irony here

lol u seem to like talking about ur own demise lol...

Essentially, the souls of people IS the issue involved that is of greatest urgency to the Galactic Command or Confederation, for this saving of the souls is that which the spiritual forces perceives to be the real purpose and value. The physical body is temporal anyway, and has only a short time on earth, but the soul being permanent, being more or less eternal, is the more important concern. The Draconian and the Orion forces think that by making it appear the soul is just an illusion and that one's body is what counts, they find themselves able to influence people by fear and by coercion, based on bodily needs and preservation. And in this manner they actually capture the souls of entities who are trying to preserve their body and will do so at the cost of their soul"

and u live in boston... i assume u r chinese living in america boston... if there ever was all out war between china vs usa u be killed by ur fellow country men... i just like to point out the irony here

lol u seem to like talking about ur own demise lol...

Are you kidding me? It's not that easy to kill an "armchair general." I can sense a nuke war coming from 24 hours away. As soon as the Pentagon announces that we've reached DEFCON 1, I'm driving west immediately and getting the heck away from Boston.

There are many lakes in Western Massachusetts. I have scuba gear downstairs in the basement. I'll bring along a few extra oxygen tanks. I'll spend my time at the bottom of a lake and wait for any nuclear blast to blow over me. Water is great at protecting against a nuclear blast heat-wave and stopping neutrons.

This armchair general intends to survive World War III and continue to voice his opinion on post-apocalyptic geostrategic affairs or what's left of them.

After the "all out (nuke) war," my first post will be titled "I don't think an all-out nuke war was a good idea. Here's why...."

Currently, China has the plan to move her future SSBN base to South China Sea from Bohai Sea and Yellow Sea. Because South China Sea has deep water that is sufficient to allow those big SSBNs (10,000 tonnes+) to remain stealthy. Whereas Bohai Sea and Yellow Sea have shallow water which cannot cover the SSBN that is no more than 10,000 tonnes considering that type 092 is only 6,000-8,000 tonnes and 8,000-10,000 tonnes for type 094.

But the only disadvantage to put the SSBNs in the South China Sea is being closer to equator which needs longer range of SLBM to cover the entire region of USA.

Now I can imagine that type 096 could be a quite large SSBN (perhaps between 16,000-20,000 tonnes) that cannot be hidden in the Bohai Sea and the Yellow Sea which also needs a longer range of SLBM in order to be able to reach anywhere of USA. Most likely it would be equipped with the modified/advanced version of JL-2 (JL-2A) which possesses a range of 10,000-12,000 km with a full payload.

Everything is indicating PLAN are happy with 094s, and has decided to build 4-6 in total, and no 096s are being planned for now. I think your story came from 093, which is not so advanced and will be limited to 2 vessels only, the new 095 has been put on drawing board.

Are you kidding me? It's not that easy to kill an "armchair general." I can sense a nuke war coming from 24 hours away. As soon as the Pentagon announces that we've reached DEFCON 1, I'm driving west immediately and getting the heck away from Boston.

There are many lakes in Western Massachusetts. I have scuba gear downstairs in the basement. I'll bring along a few extra oxygen tanks. I'll spend my time at the bottom of a lake and wait for any nuclear blast to blow over me. Water is great at protecting against a nuclear blast heat-wave and stopping neutrons.

This armchair general intends to survive World War III and continue to voice his opinion on post-apocalyptic geostrategic affairs or what's left of them.

After the "all out (nuke) war," my first post will be titled "I don't think an all-out nuke war was a good idea. Here's why...."

so, you are near the very top of the target list I dont think you can drive away when everybody is driving too.A H-bomb will only destroy buildings, so you will be almost certainly safe if you can find somewhere underground to hide, and secure the way out.Basically, you will survive the first few days if you are not in one of the biggest cities. After that, you should go to find a mushroom farm, and try to marry the owners' daughter as mushroom is the only reliable food source in a nuclear winter. Then you will almost surely survive, though your kids may have 3 or 4 arms or legs, which does not sound good. Why are we talking about this lets get rid of all the n-bombs

so, you are near the very top of the target list I dont think you can drive away when everybody is driving too.A H-bomb will only destroy buildings, so you will be almost certainly safe if you can find somewhere underground to hide, and secure the way out.Basically, you will survive the first few days if you are not in one of the biggest cities. After that, you should go to find a mushroom farm, and try to marry the owners' daughter as mushroom is the only reliable food source in a nuclear winter. Then you will almost surely survive, though your kids may have 3 or 4 arms or legs, which does not sound good. Why are we talking about this lets get rid of all the n-bombs

Hmmm...I might have to work on my contingency plan. Now that you mention it, everybody will probably be on the highways when they announce DEFCON 1. I might have to get a jump on everyone else around DEFCON 3 or when six aircraft carriers (e.g. a la "Summer Pulse") are headed towards Japan for real.

I'll start googling for mushroom farms in Western Massachusetts. If the kids ask me about their "3 or 4 arms or legs," I'll just say, "nah, that happens all the time. Daddy is the genetic mutant with only 2 arms or legs. You're supposed to have extra limbs in case you lose one or two in an accident."

If we get "rid of all the n-bombs" then superior U.S. stealth technology is the trump card. The only thing that's preserving Chinese and Russian sovereignty is n-bombs. Without n-bombs, the U.S. won't just be in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A nuclear war isn't war isn't survivable not these days. Unfortunately for us these nukes are designed to blow up in the atmosphere and just above ground. So we can expect massive radiation contamination in a wide geographical area. All animals will die and most plant will be contaminated. Crazy Americans are doing a mad thing by carrying nukes and threatening the world.

QUOTE (Martian @ May 5 2010, 03:13 PM)

Hmmm...I might have to work on my contingency plan. Now that you mention it, everybody will probably be on the highways when they announce DEFCON 1. I might have to get a jump on everyone else around DEFCON 3 or when six aircraft carriers (e.g. a la "Summer Pulse") are headed towards Japan for real.

I'll start googling for mushroom farms in Western Massachusetts. If the kids ask me about their "3 or 4 arms or legs," I'll just say, "nah, that happens all the time. Daddy is the genetic mutant with only 2 arms or legs. You're supposed to have extra limbs in case you lose one or two in an accident."

If we get "rid of all the n-bombs" then superior U.S. stealth technology is the trump card. The only thing that's preserving Chinese and Russian sovereignty is n-bombs. Without n-bombs, the U.S. won't just be in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A nuclear war isn't war isn't survivable not these days. Unfortunately for us these nukes are designed to blow up in the atmosphere and just above ground. So we can expect massive radiation contamination in a wide geographical area. All animals will die and most plant will be contaminated. Crazy Americans are doing a mad thing by carrying nukes and threatening the world.

Another excellent point. I'll have to stock up on potassium iodide. My post-apocalyptic survival plans are becoming a lot more complicated than I thought.

Following the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in April, 1986, a saturated solution of potassium iodide (SSKI) was administered to 10.5 million children and 7 million adults in Poland[10] as a prophylactic measure against accumulation of radioactive iodine-131 in the thyroid gland.

Potassium iodide was also approved in 1982 by the US FDA to protect the thyroid glands from radioactive iodine. In the event of an accident or attack at a nuclear power plant, or fallout from a nuclear bomb, several volatile fission product radionuclides may be released. 131I is a common fission by-product and is particularly dangerous as the body concentrates it in the thyroid gland, which may lead to thyroid cancer. By saturating the body with a source of stable iodide prior to exposure, inhaled or ingested 131I tends to be excreted. Potassium iodide cannot protect against any other causes of radiation poisoning, nor can it provide any degree of protection against dirty bombs that produce radionuclides other than isotopes of iodine."

Hmmm...I might have to work on my contingency plan. Now that you mention it, everybody will probably be on the highways when they announce DEFCON 1. I might have to get a jump on everyone else around DEFCON 3 or when six aircraft carriers (e.g. a la "Summer Pulse") are headed towards Japan for real.

I'll start googling for mushroom farms in Western Massachusetts. If the kids ask me about their "3 or 4 arms or legs," I'll just say, "nah, that happens all the time. Daddy is the genetic mutant with only 2 arms or legs. You're supposed to have extra limbs in case you lose one or two in an accident."

Given a real emergency, there would be no places to hide unless you could make it out of the country into northern Canada away from the main roads. Then as long as you brought a few hundred pounds of wheat and rice, water purification equipment, rifles, shotguns, lots of ammunition, night vision and communications equipment, solar energy panels, and some family members, you could probably survive.

QUOTE (Martian @ May 5 2010, 03:13 PM)

If we get "rid of all the n-bombs" then superior U.S. stealth technology is the trump card. The only thing that's preserving Chinese and Russian sovereignty is n-bombs. Without n-bombs, the U.S. won't just be in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We'd definitely be seeing alot more use from these super weapons, and philosophies along the lines of Project for a New American Century and the flawed ideas espoused by Francis Fukuyama would probably rule the day. American conventional military power is so overwhelming today, it's downright scary. In such a world, the UN Security Council would probably not exist and current world politics would then be more reflective of the military and economic power of each state, rather than heavily weighted in favor of their military strength as it seems today, Russia anybody?

Following the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in April, 1986, a saturated solution of potassium iodide (SSKI) was administered to 10.5 million children and 7 million adults in Poland[10] as a prophylactic measure against accumulation of radioactive iodine-131 in the thyroid gland.

Potassium iodide was also approved in 1982 by the US FDA to protect the thyroid glands from radioactive iodine. In the event of an accident or attack at a nuclear power plant, or fallout from a nuclear bomb, several volatile fission product radionuclides may be released. 131I is a common fission by-product and is particularly dangerous as the body concentrates it in the thyroid gland, which may lead to thyroid cancer. By saturating the body with a source of stable iodide prior to exposure, inhaled or ingested 131I tends to be excreted. Potassium iodide cannot protect against any other causes of radiation poisoning, nor can it provide any degree of protection against dirty bombs that produce radionuclides other than isotopes of iodine."

Are you really scaered? There is no probability of a nuclear war, we are talking about possibility only. And I dont think the nukes we have can destroy the earth and kill everything in one go, our planet and it creatures have survived lots of more deadly incidents. If you are worrying about yourself, there is not much you can do, you only need to win that LOTTO

Are you really scaered? There is no probability of a nuclear war, we are talking about possibility only. And I dont think the nukes we have can destroy the earth and kill everything in one go, our planet and it creatures have survived lots of more deadly incidents. If you are worrying about yourself, there is not much you can do, you only need to win that LOTTO

You're right. My chance of winning LOTTO is far greater than the chance of a nuclear war. The heck with the nuclear war. I'll try my luck on a lottery ticket.

Given a real emergency, there would be no places to hide unless you could make it out of the country into northern Canada away from the main roads. Then as long as you brought a few hundred pounds of wheat and rice, water purification equipment, rifles, shotguns, lots of ammunition, night vision and communications equipment, solar energy panels, and some family members, you could probably survive.

We'd definitely be seeing alot more use from these super weapons, and philosophies along the lines of Project for a New American Century and the flawed ideas espoused by Francis Fukuyama would probably rule the day. American conventional military power is so overwhelming today, it's downright scary. In such a world, the UN Security Council would probably not exist and current world politics would then be more reflective of the military and economic power of each state, rather than heavily weighted in favor of their military strength as it seems today, Russia anybody?

What a giant pain in the neck. The heck with it. I'll spend my last thirty minutes enjoying a nice glass of coke on the rocks and posting my thoughts on the morons that pushed the red buttons.

Without n-bombs, everyone would probably be speaking American English by now. In America, we call it an elevator, which is an example of American English. For some strange reason, the British named their elevators as "lifts." Go figure.

What a giant pain in the neck. The heck with it. I'll spend my last thirty minutes enjoying a nice glass of coke on the rocks and posting my thoughts on the morons that pushed the red buttons.

Without n-bombs, everyone would probably be speaking American English by now. In America, we call it an elevator, which is an example of American English. For some strange reason, the British named their elevators as "lifts." Go figure.

Without internet, they will split to 2 languages in the next 500 years, but with the help of internet, I think there will be only one unified language in the future, which we dont underatand

What a giant pain in the neck. The heck with it. I'll spend my last thirty minutes enjoying a nice glass of coke on the rocks and posting my thoughts on the morons that pushed the red buttons.

Without n-bombs, everyone would probably be speaking American English by now. In America, we call it an elevator, which is an example of American English. For some strange reason, the British named their elevators as "lifts." Go figure.

I believe in the Star Trek version where everybody will eventually be carrying around a universal translator. So, even the most obscure language in the Papuan rainforest would sound like the refined Queen's English to the most discerning ear.

Anyway, I think China has a small yet reliable nuclear arsenal, with the help of another few 094s and a dozen of KT-IIIs, it will be in a reasonable good position, overwhelming advantage over India, China should be satisfied for a while.

There is only one reason that China doesn't already have nuclear parity with the United States and Russia. After all, China has possessed the technology for W-88 class warheads and Long March rockets/Dong Feng missiles for decades.

Currently, the U.S. is the only restraint to prevent the Imperial Japanese Army from developing and fielding nuclear weapons. Did I say Imperial Japanese Army? I meant Self-Defense Force. Anyway, if China wants nuclear parity with the U.S. and Russia, the U.S. will no longer restrain the Imperial Japanese Army from going nuclear.

That's the choice. China can choose to accept nuclear non-parity in exchange for no Imperial Japanese Army nuclear weapons. The alternative is far worse. If China destabilizes the military balance vis-a-vis the United States then the U.S. will play the nuclear Japan card. The Eagle has leverage on the Dragon.

The following article is a good summary of the message from the Eagle to the Dragon:

If you challenge me in Asia, I might free the Bear from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. (This is a bluff. The Europeans will be really mad with a lot of Russian nuclear intermediate-range missiles pointed at them.)

Also, I might free the Imperial Japanese Army to go nuclear. (This is not a bluff. The Eagle will force the Dragon to pay a price.) Don't rock the boat too much. Or we will both be worse off.

"May 28, 2009Facing A New Missile Threat From ChinaHow The U.S. Should Respond To China's Development Of Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile Systems

(CBS) This column was written by Andrew Erickson.

Authoritative Chinese military documents suggest that Beijing has taken a serious interest in anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs).

U.S. government sources state consistently that Beijing is pursuing an ASBM based on a variant of the DF-21/CSS-5 medium-range solid propellant ballistic missile (MRBM). The DF-21’s 1,500 km+ range could hold ships at risk in a large maritime area, far beyond Taiwan into the Western Pacific.

If fielded, the ASBM would be just one of a dizzying array of new platforms and weapons systems China has been buying and building since the late 1990s-systems which, taken as a whole, will allow China to assert unprecedented control of its contested maritime periphery.

The ASBM, however, differs markedly from the quiet submarines, lethal anti-ship cruise missiles, and copious sea mines which China has been adding to its inventory. It would draw on over half a century of Chinese experience with ballistic missiles, would be fired from mobile, highly concealable platforms, and would have the range to strike targets hundreds of miles from China’s shores.

While probably intended with U.S. carrier strike groups (CSGs) specifically in mind, Chinese ASBM development could have deeply destabilizing consequences that would reverberate far beyond U.S.-China strategic relations.

The first damage from a demonstrated Chinese ASBM might be to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) between Washington and Moscow, which has prevented both nations from possessing conventional (and nuclear) ground-launched ballistic (and cruise) missiles with ranges of 500 and 5,500 km. Various Russian civilian and military leaders have recently questioned the treaty’s relevance to Moscow’s national interests, particularly in light of U.S. ballistic missile defense development and Chinese nuclear MRBM capabilities (e.g., the DF-21).

Chinese demonstration of the strategic value of missiles with precisely the parameters banned by the treaty might generate considerable pressure in Moscow and even Washington for its revision or outright abandonment.

Additionally, other nations in the region, particularly Japan, which feels increasingly vulnerable strategically yet remains reluctant to develop nuclear weapons, might feel pressured to develop similar capacity of their own. At the very least, the resulting strategic tension would generate additional military procurement and energize long-term investment to counter or balance against Chinese ASBM capabilities in some fashion, a phenomenon that would leave all parties worse off than before.

At the political level, then, Washington must emphasize to Beijing that ASBM development on its part would have implications inimical to both U.S. and Chinese interests.

Responding to the unprecedented strategic challenge presented by an ASBM capability would require the U.S. military and civilian leadership to face hard truths. The most perilous approach would be to insist that the U.S. maintained its ability to keep the peace, when in fact the military capabilities that underpinned that ability were diminishing, at least in a relative sense.

Such a discrepancy between rhetoric and reality would erode America’s regional credibility and fuel Chinese overconfidence. The prospect of documenting that discrepancy publicly might motivate China to conduct a demonstration of an ASBM; a successful test could create the impression that U.S. power projection capabilities-and the regional credibility that depends on them-had been dramatically diminished.

To prevent these negative outcomes, the U.S. must redouble its efforts to promote peace and cooperation, while ensuring that its own capabilities remain strong. Land-based air power will not solve the problem, because China’s strategic rocket forces already hold all useful air bases at risk with surface-to-surface missiles simpler and more reliable than an ASBM.

Defensive measures to increase the stealth of the CSG, such as decoys, obscurants, and electronic countermeasures, may buy some time, but would the U.S. bet a CSG on their effectiveness? More importantly, it would be difficult to credibly demonstrate defensive measures without compromising their effectiveness; China and the region may perceive an erosion of U.S. strength and credibility, even if the CSG can defend itself against the ASBM.

Ultimately, it may prove necessary to shift U.S. combat power from massive, vulnerable platforms that present very lucrative targets, to platforms which are more concealable, survivable, dispersed, or disposable. Investment in submarines, stealthier ships, long-range aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicles may present options for maintaining credibility even in an environment where the aircraft carrier is perceived as vulnerable. This would require a fundamental cultural shift away from a carrier-centric navy.

These challenges underscore the importance of maintaining positive cross-Strait relations, which have improved markedly since Ma Ying-jeou assumed Taiwan’s presidency last year. Meanwhile, Washington and Beijing are increasingly pursuing tremendous shared interests, from deterring Somali pirates to averting a financial tsunami. They could do more to ensure that bilateral military relations are similarly productive.

This column was written by Andrew Erickson, Associate Professor,China Maritime Studies Institute, Naval War College. These are his personal views. For further details, see "On the Verge of a Game-Changer," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, May 2009."

There is only one reason that China doesn't already have nuclear parity with the United States and Russia. After all, China has possessed the technology for W-88 class warheads and Long March rockets/Dong Feng missiles for decades.

Currently, the U.S. is the only restraint to prevent the Imperial Japanese Army from developing and fielding nuclear weapons. Did I say Imperial Japanese Army? I meant Self-Defense Force. Anyway, if China wants nuclear parity with the U.S. and Russia, the U.S. will no longer restrain the Imperial Japanese Army from going nuclear.

China will never seek nuclear parity given its strategic-philosophical bent. It's strategic decisions have consistently revolved around independence and mutual win-win type socio-economic/diplomatic agreements throughout its modern history. American-style strategic thinking is alien to China and is American projection of its own behavior and thinking.

I'm sure the U.S. has restrained Japan from going nuclear, but not for the reasons suggested. Japan is not controlled by the U.S. like a banana republic. Given the right circumstances, Japan will go nuclear, how else to explain the 43 tonne plutonium stockpile it retains. However, the U.S. does not want Japan, NOR ANY ally, to ever go nuclear because it's strategic calculations revolve around it's overwhelming power and ultimate leadership. Any country that has advanced nuclear weapons disturbs this calculus and removes the Trump Card from America's hands.

QUOTE (Martian @ May 8 2010, 05:42 AM)

That's the choice. China can choose to accept nuclear non-parity in exchange for no Imperial Japanese Army nuclear weapons. The alternative is far worse. If China destabilizes the military balance vis-a-vis the United States then the U.S. will play the nuclear Japan card. The Eagle has leverage on the Dragon.

This is a fallacy that assumes the U.S. is willing to play nuclear brinksmanship that ultimately allows its nominal allies to move out from under their thumbs. The question of American leverage is a fact. However, this doesn't preclude the strategic interests of Japan will not overrule American pressure.

QUOTE (Martian @ May 8 2010, 05:42 AM)

The following article is a good summary of the message from the Eagle to the Dragon:

If you challenge me in Asia, I might free the Bear from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. (This is a bluff. The Europeans will be really mad with a lot of Russian nuclear intermediate-range missiles pointed at them.)

Also, I might free the Imperial Japanese Army to go nuclear. (This is not a bluff. The Eagle will force the Dragon to pay a price.) Don't rock the boat too much. Or we will both be worse off.

"May 28, 2009Facing A New Missile Threat From ChinaHow The U.S. Should Respond To China's Development Of Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile Systems

(CBS) This column was written by Andrew Erickson....Additionally, other nations in the region, particularly Japan, which feels increasingly vulnerable strategically yet remains reluctant to develop nuclear weapons, might feel pressured to develop similar capacity of their own. At the very least, the resulting strategic tension would generate additional military procurement and energize long-term investment to counter or balance against Chinese ASBM capabilities in some fashion, a phenomenon that would leave all parties worse off than before.

Both are bluffs. Japan can go nuclear, as Germany can, but it will be up to the Japanese. A litany of authors propagating an ASBM threat doesn't change the reality that it's highly unlikely to be operationally effective. I explained in an earlier message how improbable ASBMs reliability and effectiveness would be given current technology. You mentioned an earlier reference to a CCTV7 discussion with a cartoon depicting an ASBM. Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I was being sarcastic. China is known to broadcast military news that ultimately is false. Why this happens can only be speculated. Could be nationalist speculation on the part of analysts, uncontrolled fake news propagation similar to what happens in American media, or purposeful deceit with ulterior Chinese motives. Just consider that a high caliber bullet can't hit a stationary target within 15 feet once it gets beyond 3 miles range using wind calibration equipment. Consider that a Pershing-II ballistic missile that has terminal guidance has a CEP of 30m on a STATIONARY target. Now consider a mach 12+ DF-21 trying to hit a ship MOVING at 35knots steaming in a non-linear, curved trajectory which will be well outside of its original location when the DF-21 was launched by around ~3km....then get back to me about how reliable such a theoretical ASBM is. Until this is tested and demonstrated to be able to hit a fast moving target miles out from its original location, that's not moving in a straight line, from 1000km away, no amount of reports that are nothing more than fear mongering can be convincing.

QUOTE (Martian @ May 8 2010, 05:42 AM)

Ultimately, it may prove necessary to shift U.S. combat power from massive, vulnerable platforms that present very lucrative targets, to platforms which are more concealable, survivable, dispersed, or disposable. Investment in submarines, stealthier ships, long-range aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicles may present options for maintaining credibility even in an environment where the aircraft carrier is perceived as vulnerable. This would require a fundamental cultural shift away from a carrier-centric navy.

Supercarriers can be sunk or at least disabled using conventional methods like massed anti-ship cruise missiles. This why they would be in mortal danger in any defense of Taiwan since they would be exposed to such an attack considering they'd be close enough to the Chinese mainland. An effective ASBM isn't even needed, although it would virtually garantee the outcome unlike a massed cruise missile attack, which would still allow American forces within striking range of the Chinese mainland.

China will never seek nuclear parity given its strategic-philosophical bent. It's strategic decisions have consistently revolved around independence and mutual win-win type socio-economic/diplomatic agreements throughout its modern history. This sort of strategic thinking is alien to China and is American projection of its own behavior and thinking.

I'm sure the U.S. has restrained Japan from going nuclear, but not for the reasons suggested. Japan is not controlled by the U.S. like a banana republic. Given the right circumstances, Japan will go nuclear, how else to explain the 43 tonne plutonium stockpile it retains. However, the U.S. does not want Japan, NOR ANY ally, to ever go nuclear because it's strategic calculations revolve around it's overwhelming power and ultimate leadership. Any country that has advanced nuclear weapons disturbs this calculus and removes the Trump Card from America's hands.

This is a fallacy that assumes the U.S. is willing to play nuclear brinksmanship that ultimately allows its nominal allies to move out from under their thumbs.

Both are bluffs. Japan can go nuclear, as Germany can, but it will be the sole decision of Japan. Btw, a litany of authors propagating an ASBM threat doesn't change the reality that it's highly unlikely to be operationally effective. I explained in an earlier message how improbable ASBMs reliability and effectiveness would be given current technology. You mentioned an earlier reference to a CCTV7 discussion with a cartoon depicting an ASBM. Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I was being sarcastic. China is known to broadcast military news that ultimately is untrue. Why this happens can only be speculated. Could be speculation on the part of analysts, uncontrolled fake news propagation similar to what happens in American media, or purposeful deceit with ulterior Chinese motives. Just consider that a high caliber bullet can't hit a stationary target within 15 feet once it gets beyond 3 miles range using wind calibration equipment. Consider that a Pershing-II ballistic missile that has terminal guidance has a CEP of 30m on a STATIONARY target. Now consider a mach 12+ DF-21 trying to hit a ship MOVING at 35knots steaming in a non-linear, curved trajectory which will be outside of its original location when the DF-21 was launched by around ~3km....then get back to me about how reliable such a theoretical ASBM is. Until this is tested and demonstrated to be able to hit a fast moving target, that's not moving in a straight line, from 1000km out, no amount of reports that are nothing more than fear mongering can be convincing.

Supercarriers can be sunk or at least disabled using conventional methods like massed anti-ship cruise missiles. This why they would be in mortal danger in any defense of Taiwan since they would be exposed to such an attack considering they'd be close enough to the Chinese mainland.

The Pershing II was built in 1984, which is 26 years ago. Why is it difficult to believe that computer chips and sensors have advanced dramatically? Also, don't you think that it is reasonable to expect improved missile performance after 26 years? In 1984, the idea of intercepting a missile with another missile sounded preposterous. The idea of missile interception was ridiculed with the phrase "hitting a bullet with a bullet." And yet, in 2010, "hitting a bullet with a bullet" is commonplace due to advances in research and development, computer chip speeds, and sensor technology.

We know that computer chip speeds and sensors have advanced to the point where they can routinely "hit a bullet with a bullet." Why is it difficult to believe that they can hit a slowly-moving "sitting duck" with a "bullet"?

http://article.natio...let/mona-charen"Feb 22, 2008 ... But hitting a bullet with a bullet has become almost routine. On September 28, 2007, also high above the Pacific Ocean (75 miles), ..."

China can change/destabilize the military balance in East Asia through nuclear or non-nuclear means. Here is a follow-up on the non-nuclear aspect of China's ASBM (i.e. anti-ship ballistic missile) affecting U.S. military strategy and planning.

Though Defense Secretary Robert Gates never mentions China by name, he has raised the prospect of moving away from a carrier-centric Navy because of China's development of asymmetric weapons to defeat U.S. carriers (see http://forum.pakista...howtopic=88850).

New Wars"May 7, 2010 ... Speech by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates at the Navy .... why the Navy needs to rethink its carrier centric policy in this new era .... this year said the move would put carrier procurement on “a more fiscally sustainable path .... Or the cruises could drain away ships, money and sailors given ..."

Four Chinese submarines lead 56 destroyers, frigates, missile boats, subs and planes off the port of Qingdao in April 2009 after tensions flared with the U.S. in the South China Sea. AFP/Getty Images/Newscom

Military Advantage: Our defense secretary proposes doing what no other foreign adversary has done: sink the U.S. Navy. We don't need those billion-dollar destroyers, he says. Meanwhile, the Chinese navy rushes to fill the vacuum.

Once Britannia ruled the waves, later to be replaced by America and its Navy. From the Battle of Midway to President Reagan's 600-ship fleet that helped win the Cold War, naval supremacy has been critical to the protection and survival of our nation.

Which is why we find the recent remarks of Defense Secretary Robert Gates to the Navy League at the Sea-Air-Space expo so disturbing. He seems to think naval supremacy is a luxury we can't afford and that, like every other aspect of our military, an already shrunken U.S. Navy needs to downsize.

"As we learned last year, you don't necessarily need a billion-dollar guided missile destroyer to chase down and deal with a bunch of teenage pirates wielding AK-47s and RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades)," Gates quipped.

We are not laughing.

Pubescent pirates aren't the only threat we face. Last month, a Chinese naval task force from the East Sea Fleet — including the imposing Sovremenny-class guided missile destroyers, frigates and submarines — passed through the Miyako Strait near Okinawa, a move that sent shock waves through Japan.

The exercise took place just days after warships from the North Sea Fleet returned from what China's army-navy called "confrontation exercises" in the South China Sea.

"Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?" Gates asked. The answer is yes. Our national interests are global, in every ocean. Some will be in port, and others will be meeting commitments from the Persian Gulf to the Taiwan Strait.

It's well to consider the "new challenges," as Gates put it, in the form of anti-ship missiles in the hands of the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah or the threat posed by Iran's arsenal of missiles, mines and speed boats near the Strait of Hormuz. But new challenges don't make the old ones go away. We must be prepared to meet them all.

"At the end of the day, we have to ask whether this nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 billion to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines and $11 billion carriers," Gates said.

The question is whether we can afford not to. Defense, unlike health care, is a constitutional imperative."

U.S. Department of DefenseOffice of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)Speech

"Naval War College (Newport, RI)As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Newport, RI, Friday, April 17, 2009

Good morning. It’s a real pleasure to be here for my first visit as secretary to the Naval War College. Based on the weather I’m thinking I may move the Pentagon here....In this respect, it is important to keep some perspective. For example, as much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet, by one estimate, is still larger than the next 13 navies combined – and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners. In terms of capabilities, the over-match is even greater. No country in the rest of the world has anything close to the reach and firepower to match a carrier strike group. And the United States has and will maintain eleven until at least 2040. I might also note that we have a number of Expeditionary Strike Groups and will in the not-too-distant future will be able to carry the F-35. Potential adversaries are well-aware of this fact, which is why, despite significant naval modernization programs underway in some countries, no one intends to bankrupt themselves by challenging the U.S. to a shipbuilding competition akin to the Dreadnought arms race prior to World War I. Instead, we’ve seen their investments in weapons geared to neutralize our advantages – to deny the U.S. military freedom of movement and action while potentially threatening our primary means of projecting power: our bases, sea and air assets, and the networks that support them.This is a particular concern with aircraft carriers and other large, multi-billion dollar blue-water surface combatants – where the loss of even one ship would be a national catastrophe. We know other nations are working on ways to thwart the reach and striking power of the U.S. battle fleet – whether by producing stealthy submarines in quantity or developing anti-ship missiles with increasing range and accuracy. We ignore these developments at our peril. The Royal Navy’s greatest defeat in World War II – the sinking of the capital ships H.M.S. Repulse and the brand new Prince of Wales by Japanese aircraft just days after Pearl Harbor – was due in part to a command with little appreciation for air power, and in particular the threat posed by a single, air-delivered torpedo."

The Pershing II was built in 1984, which is 26 years ago. Why is it difficult to believe that computer chips and sensors have advanced dramatically? Also, don't you think that it is reasonable to expect improved missile performance after 26 years? In 1984, the idea of intercepting a missile with another missile sounded preposterous. The idea of missile interception was ridiculed with the phrase "hitting a bullet with a bullet." And yet, in 2010, "hitting a bullet with a bullet" is commonplace due to advances in research and development, computer chip speeds, and sensor technology.

We know that computer chip speeds and sensors have advanced to the point where they can routinely "hit a bullet with a bullet." Why is it difficult to believe that they can hit a slowly-moving "sitting duck" with a "bullet"?

ABM systems were already under development by both the U.S. and USSR for well over 30 years by the 21st Century so I'm not sure how much legitimacy one could give to the missile-defense naysayers when it was already established as very possible by the 1980s with the S-300 system. I think the main argument against missile defense is not that a bullet cannot hit another bullet. That's obviously quite possible given that bullets have predictable ballistic trajectories. It's that dummy warheads can be deployed which would make interception impossible without a mid-course interception, an impossibility when you're dealing with longer range missiles. I don't think an ASBM is impossible, I actually believe this is very possible, just not by China at this point in time. I emphasize the difficulty of this feat because these defense analysts never mention the technicalities involved and this is truly a game breaking technological breakthrough that is far above what both the U.S. and Russia currently have.

QUOTE (Martian @ May 8 2010, 07:13 PM)

http://article.natio...let/mona-charen"Feb 22, 2008 ... But hitting a bullet with a bullet has become almost routine. On September 28, 2007, also high above the Pacific Ocean (75 miles), ..."

Nobody ever disputed ABMs can work. However, there's alot of research into ABM systems and there's consensus that nothing can currently intercept a ballistic missile that does in-flight maneuvers. Granted, a ship moving at 35knots can't be compared to a missile at high hypersonic speeds. However, the difference is, an ASBM is a long range ballistic missile that must adjust its trajectory both in mid-flight and again during terminal descent given the uncertainty of where the ship will be moving. With these sorts of conditions, you can't even track the target reliably. Let's ignore the tracking issue and assume we know exactly where the aircraft carrier is the entire time and that no enemy countermeasures have been able to disturb the targeting mechanism until the terminal phase. After the mid-flight course correction, you're still looking at up to ~2km terminal stage course correction. However, since we're talking a terminal stage course correction, this means the missile will have to have first crossed the ionosphere and into the mesosphere before it will be able to begin its course correction. In other words, its trajectory will still be far away from its target when it'll at that time be seconds from impacting the Earth. This situation and a situation where a MARV warhead only needs to adjust its trajectory by say 400m from its stationary target is world's apart because the target in our case is still moving in some random direction that is multiple times further away.

I have a problem with this ASBM claim not simply because it's a huge technological leap. It's also because China's not known for its ballistic missile accuracy. Estimates before talk of this ASBM began was that China's best had ballistic missiles with a CEP of maybe ~200m. Now we're supposed to believe that even though the U.S. has nothing even remotely close to an ASBM's accuracy against a moving object, let alone the ability to track this moving object over a thousand miles away, that China, who was behind in this technology by at least 20 years, suddenly has leapfrogged everybody by 10+ years, in 1 shot, out of nowhere?

As much as I applaud China's technology progress and probable world technological leadership over the next 12-20 years, it just isn't there yet and the U.S. will remain far and away #1 for at least the next 10 years, technologically and militarily even longer. To suggest China can develop a game breaker like this without any precedent to suggest it sounds too much like propaganda to me and an American defense establishments attempt to garner support for its ABM missile defense ambitions.

China can change/destabilize the military balance in East Asia through nuclear or non-nuclear means. Here is a follow-up on the non-nuclear aspect of China's ASBM (i.e. anti-ship ballistic missile) affecting U.S. military strategy and planning.

Though Defense Secretary Robert Gates never mentions China by name, he has raised the prospect of moving away from a carrier-centric Navy because of China's development of asymmetric weapons to defeat U.S. carriers (see http://forum.pakista...howtopic=88850).

New Wars"May 7, 2010 ... Speech by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates at the Navy .... why the Navy needs to rethink its carrier centric policy in this new era .... this year said the move would put carrier procurement on “a more fiscally sustainable path .... Or the cruises could drain away ships, money and sailors given ..."

I think the key quote in the article is "no one intends to bankrupt themselves by challenging the U.S. to a shipbuilding competition". Assuming a military arms race between unequal economic powers, he is correct. Assuming a military arms race where there is only 1 single participant wasting their money on needless weapons within a grossly inefficient government bureaucracy while their financial/economic system is soon to implode, I leave it up to the financially knowledgeable to speculate what will happen in the next 6 years. On the bright side, this is a great time to make money. On the bad side, it'll be bad for everyone else listening to conventional wisdom.

I was contacted by Galrahn to read over a Chinese blog entry on PLAN's ASBM development (found here) and post my thoughts on it. I think that before you look further, there are some other good reads on this topic. Sean O'Connor has posted one of the better summaries on this regarding to OTH radar and ASBM threat. I have also written an entry in the past regarding ASBM threat, but it's really not that well researched. That one was based on an article that stated China has solved the difficulties surrounding hitting a moving target with a ballistic missile.

I think that the blog entry I read was definitely the best researched work on PLAN's ASBM plans. It listed many research papers that were written in Chinese and published years ago. As a result of that, I cannot possibly confirm that some of the things I've read are actually accurate. The sources that I can confirm on the Internet do seem to conform to what he was stating. I think in order to continue, it would be beneficial to read some of the resources that he mentioned. The include:Sinodefence's Space PageSinodefence's Missile PageXianglong UAV PageYilong UAV pageThe first one is important, because you can look through the current and future development in China's space industry. It's important to look through the communication, IMINT and EO satellites that China will use in this system.In the second link, the important missiles to look for are DF-21 and possibly DF-15. In the third link, it lists China's probably most recent venture into HALE UAV. It's about 2/3 the size of Global Hawk or maybe even smaller. We don't have any figure on its endurance, but one would guess it's much less than that of Global Hawk due to the smaller size and less efficient engine. Although at this point, I would think that PLAN would be fine with an Asian Hawk. And the final link is an entry with information on China's version of Predator MALE UAV. The stats listed on that page were actually from its ddescription in the Zhuhai airshow, so I can verify that they are accurate. The two UAVs are both developed by Chengdu AC (the developer of J-10), so my guess is that Xianglong's endurance is comparable to Yilong (around 20 hours).

Reading through those links + Sean's blog entry are important in appreciating the rest of the ASBM system. I will try to make this out in Q&A format:

1. What caused China to start develop this system?There are two main causes that drove this project. The first one is USA's Pershing II project. I guess this showed PLA the accuracy that can be achieved through MaRV warhead and active radar guidance. The second one is the Taiwan incident in 1996 when PLA's powerlessness against USN carrier group was on full display.

2. When did the project start and where is it now?China probably started researching on MaRV right after Pershing II was deployed in 1984. By 1991, China had finished research on MaRV. According to the blog, there was a famous research paper in 1994 about attacking fixed target using MaRV technology. In 1999's national pride parade, they showed a missile with all the basic technology needed for the missile part of the ASBM system. If we look at the current status of the satellite constellations and reconnaissance platforms, we could probably say that the system has achieved some operational capability. The entire system needed for ASBM probably will not get set up until all the space assets and UAVs are online next decade.

3. Which missile are they using and what kind of improvements are they putting in?It looks like DF-21 is the missile that ASBM is based on. It uses a solid propellant, is road-mobile, widely deployed and also have recently been improved to DF-21C. It's range of around 2000 km would perfectly cover the areas where future conflict is likely to be fought. Its range also would cover most of the areas that China's OTH-B radar would cover. It is also large enough to carry a large warhead needed to inflict damage on carrier while also holding a more complex guidance/seeker. They have put a MaRV warhead on DF-21 for maneuverability. In order to improve the penetration capability, they have added a third stage to it to provide unpredictable movement (I think the blog described it as some kind of oscillation). They have apparently made modifications to the warhead in order to lower its radar signature. They have also added a new multi-mode seeker that apparently has an active, passive radar and infrared seeker (I'm not sure how that works). It didn't mention how the missile would counter ESM of the fleet except for improving the seeker and getting more updated info from the sources that provided it initial targeting data.

4. What are the sources that provide targeting data for this ASBM system?The blog basically listed 5 sources and they are:

* Reconnaissance Satellites - I think you can look at the Ziyuan and Yaogan series of satellites that have EO, CCD and SAR sensors as possibilities here. They could also be talking about the FY series, which is actually expected to be a constellation of Earth Observation satellites. I think it's important that in the 18th Committee on Earth Observation Satellites plenary and workshop in 2004, they announced they would launch over 100 Earth Observation satellites. I don't know enough about this to comment on which specific satellites I think will be used for scanning ships, but the blog did mention that China has used FY-2 series of satellites to track movement of targets. Another possibility is launching many short duration, micro-Earth Observation satellites in times of conflict. It mentioned that China can launch a 100 kg satellite on 12 hours notice. In peace mission 05. They launched an experimental satellite on August 2nd for detection/science experiment work. This operated for 27 days and returned to earth on August 29th after the conclusion of the exercise. * Elint satellites - It mentioned something like USN's White Cloud Spaceborne ELINT System. The problem I have with this is that I can't find any mention of China having similar system anywhere. * OTH Radar - Has a range of 800 to 3000 km. The accuracy in targetting is around 20 to 30 km. This can be improved to 2 to 3 km with improved algorithm. OTH radar can work with the recon satellites to provide more accurate targeting info. * UAV - As mentioned above, China does have a robust UAV program going right now including the aforementioned XiangLong program. As we've seen in the Zhuhai airshow, they have numerous HALE and MALE UAV projects going. The major problem currently with Chinese UAV programs is that they simply don't have many small turbojet/turbofan engine series. As a result of having to work with what they have, the major design institute in AVIC-1 can't come up with the most optimal UAVs. I think that this will change in the next 10 years, so this part of the targeting system is behind recon satellites and OTH radar. * Radio post - This is problem the most confusing one for me. The blog talked about working with elint satellites (which I don't think they have) to get the location of the carrier group through communications between ships and satellites/aerial assets.

5. How does the launching/attacking process work?I think that in times of war, they would launch many micro-EO satellites that have short duration to increase reconnaissance in the area approaching Taiwan. Similar to US, they would have HALE UAVs to do advanced scouting in front of the war zone. The OTH radar will give the base initial idea of incoming fleet. This information would be combined with data of the recon satellites to provide a more precise and more accurate targeting data. The missile would be launched to the estimated position based on initial position + velocity, but this would obviously be off. Although, I think the movement of the carrier group will not be overwhelming. If the target is 2000 km away and the missile is traveling at mach 10 (343 * 3.6 * 10 = 10,000+ km/h) , it would get there in less than 12 minutes. During that time, if the fleet moves at 30 knots, it would move at most 6 knots or around 11 km from the original location. Still, if we add this to the initial precision problems of OTH radar + EO satellite, this could still cause the fleet to be outside the scanning area of the ASBM. In the cruising process, the missile would have to continuously communicate with the base through those new Data relay satellites (like TianLian-1 that they launched recently) to get more improve the precision. The ASBM will also likely veer off the path at this time, so it would need communication with Beidou-2 constellation in order to keep it on track. When it gets close to the target, the blog talked about 3 phases in its attack: high altitude guidance, high altitude gliding and low altitude guidance. I'm really not sure how accurate is the blog's description of the process. Its general theme is slowing down the speed of the missile as it gets closer to the target to maybe give the seeker more time to lock on to target and make unpredictable movements to penetrate defense.

6. What is the operational status of this system?From all the past sources I've read, it seems like PLAN already considers this system to have achieved IOC. Normally, I don't read about a certain capability developed in a Chinese military magazine until after it is attained. From reading through different sources, it looks like IOC was probably in 2007 or 2008. As mentioned before, more elements in the system like UAV and satellites are getting added as time goes on, so I look at this as a continuously evolutionary process.

7. How beneficial is this system?That I really would have no idea. I wouldn't even know how much damage would 1 missile cause on a carrier. I would think that if this system can even temporarily put one carrier out of commission and/or keep carrier groups further out from the mainland, it would've achieved its purpose.

8. Are there other launch platforms to this system?I always thought that an-air launched version of ASBM from JH-7A is possible. There are certainly a large variety of short range ballistic missiles that JH-7A would be able to carry and provide updates for. I have not thought about launching ASBM from a SSBN, since that could easily be mistaken for a nuclear missile.

That's about it. I think a lot of resources on this are available to form an opinion.

The U.S. will make China pay a price for significantly destabilizing the military balance between the U.S. and China. Japan hates China a lot more than the U.S. Japan is located off China's coast. There is almost no time for China to react to a short-range or intermediate-range Japanese nuclear ballistic missile.

On the other hand, the U.S. will have many chances to shoot down any Japanese nuke headed over the North Pole or Pacific Ocean towards the United States. In other words, a nuclear Japan is far more dangerous to China than to the U.S.

That's why the U.S. keeps warning China to "play ball" and ensure that both countries aren't worse off.

This Spring, Barack Obama will push toward his goal of a nuclear-free world. But the stiffest resistance may be at home.

For many years, America's master plan for nuclear war with the Soviet Union was called the SIOP—the Single Integrated Operational Plan. Beginning in 1962, the U.S. president was given some options to mull in the few minutes he had to decide before Soviet missiles bore down on Washington. He could, for instance, choose to spare the Soviet satellites, the Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern Europe. Or he could opt for, say, the "urban-industrial" strike option—1,500 or so warheads dropped on 300 Russian cities. After a briefing on the SIOP on Sept. 14, 1962, President John F. Kennedy turned to his secretary of state, Dean Rusk, and remarked, "And they call us human beings."

Ever since the dawn of the atomic age at Hiroshima in August 1945, American presidents have been trying to figure out how to climb off the nuclear treadmill. The urgency may have faded in the post–Cold War era, but the weapons are still there. By 2002, President George W. Bush was signing off on a document containing his administration's Nuclear Posture Review, an -analysis of how America's nuclear arms might be used. Bush scribbled on the cover, "But why do we still have to have so many?" According to a knowledgeable source who would not be identified discussing sensitive national-security matters, President Obama wasn't briefed on the U.S. nuclear-strike plan against Russia and China until some months after he had taken office. "He thought it was insane," says the source. (The reason for the delay is unclear; the White House did not respond to repeated inquiries.)

During his presidential campaign, Obama embraced a dream first articulated by President Reagan: the abolition of nuclear weapons. The idea is no longer all that radical. In January 2007, an op-ed piece calling for a nuclear-weapons-free world appeared in The Wall Street Journal, signed by Reagan's secretary of state George Shultz; Nixon's and Ford's secretary of state, Henry Kissinger; Clinton's secretary of defense Bill Perry; and Sam Nunn, the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and longtime wise man of the defense establishment. "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse," as they were quickly dubbed, had gotten together to give cover to politicians. "We wanted the candidates of both parties to feel they could debate the issue freely," said Nunn....The prospect of nuclear proliferation is anxiety-inducing for all presidents, especially as terrorists try to get their hands on loose nukes. Obama is convinced that nuclear terrorism now poses a greater threat than the remote possibility of a nuclear war. On April 12 and 13, he will host a Washington summit of more than 40 heads of government with the aim of getting tougher measures to secure the fissile material still lying unprotected around the world. He's set a deadline of four years for truly securing the most dangerous materials. His own advisers suspect he is being overambitious but see the summit as a "consciousness-raising exercise." Every five years, the signers of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty meet to review progress, and in May they will meet again. The Obama team hopes to use the conference to push his no-nukes agenda, but he will be resisted by countries, like Iran, that resent American power. At the same time, Obama can't cut America's arsenal as much as he might like. Countries long under U.S. nuclear protection, like Japan, may decide they need their own nuclear arms as American power declines in the world. Countries choosing to stay under the nuclear umbrella will want reassurances that they can depend on it."

In my view, China is taking a middle-path toward nuclear parity with the U.S. and Russia. China is not engaging in a rapid nuclear-force modernization and expansion. However, China is also not sitting still.

Instead, China is slowly creeping up on the Americans and Russians. China has built two new Type 094 Jin-class SSBNs, each carrying 12 Julang-2 SLBMs. Also, China has built more road-mobile ICBMs. This seems to be a fair compromise that the Americans can accept. The U.S. won't complain if China adds approximately 10 to 30 ICBMs a year to her nuclear arsenal.

Five new weapon models, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, conventional cruise missiles and medium-range and short-range conventional ballistic missiles, will be shown officially for the first time in China's National Day parade in Beijing in October 1, according to Xinhua. The last such parade was ten years ago, on the 50th anniversary of Communist Party rule.

Quoting an expert from the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Second Artillery Force, responsible for nuclear deterrence and conventional ballistic missiles, the news agency reported that the new weapons would be "second generation" types, already in service with the PLA.

The big potential revelations would be the Dongfeng 41 road-mobile ICBM and the Julang 2 sea-launched ballistic missile - widely discussed outside China, but never seen before.

Chinese Internet via Armscontrolwonk

This month's DTI - to go live on the website later today - carries a report from a late-July conference on deterrence in Omaha and my op-ed on nuclear weapons. Former deputy defense secretary John Hamre's comment in Omaha that nuclear weapons have been "the subject of a successful campaign of stigmatization" in the West, but not elsewhere, is underscored by the report of the Beijing parade: it's literally impossible to conceive of a parade of nuclear missiles down Pennsylvania Avenue or Whitehall.

I reported some of the news from Omaha here at the time. PLA Col. Yao Yunzhu explained that China's nuclear policy is based on "no first use" and is strictly retaliatory, in response to a nuclear attack. "China differs in this respect from American strategists who talk about nuclear warfighting or escalation control", she added.

China, she said, works towards a "lean and effective" deterrent and will modernize its strategic forces to improve their survivability - hence the development of road- and rail-mobile weapons. Moreover, opaqueness - deliberately concealing its capabilities - is Chinese policy. "With no-first-use and a small arsenal, China depends on opaqueness to keep its deterrent credible, to induce uncertainty in an enemy's cost-benefit calculations."

As I reported a few weeks ago, Col Yunzhu cautioned that ballistic missile defense could represent a problem for China and could drive it to expand its force. Interestingly, a couple of weeks later - at the Space & Missile Defense conference in Huntsville - US STRATCOM leader Gen. Kevin Chilton echoed that comment in regard to US-Japan efforts to deter North Korean nuclear developments. "Our broader concern has to do with Chinese concern," Chilton said, "and the perception of who [BMD] is aimed against.""

"The Type 094 (NATO reporting name: Jin-class; Chinese: 晋级潜艇) is a new class of ballistic missile submarine developed by the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy. The first-of-class was constructed at Huludao Shipyard in Huludao, Liaoning Province and launched in July 2004. At least two are confirmed to have been launched. [1]

In late 2006, a commercial satellite photographed what is believed to be the new Jin-class submarine moored in Xiaopingdao Submarine Base. In comparison with the older Type 092-class submarine, it has been elongated from 122m to 133m in order to house the missile tubes and part of the reactor.[4]

JL-1 and JL-2 Missiles.

The Type 094 submarine is capable of carrying 12 of the more modern JL-2s[5] with a range of approximately 14,000 km, and is capable of targeting all of the Western Hemisphere, from close to the Chinese coast. The Type 094 is believed by some western analysts to incorporate a great deal of Russian technology and will replace the Type 092 submarine (NATO reporting name: Xia class) for the People's Liberation Army Navy.

In its 2008 assessment of China's military, the United States Department of Defense estimated that one Type 094 "may soon enter service", and that "up to five" would be in service by 2010.[5] The United States government has expressed concern over these submarines, saying that the Chinese government has not been transparent enough about the program.[6]"

Estimated range of 14,000 km for the JL-2 is at the upper range of estimates, but it is still close to the 12,000 km range for the Trident II. The extra 2,000 km may be explained by a slightly bigger JL-2 missile or arming the missile with a smaller warhead to reduce the weight.

A third possible explanation is that, since the JL-2 was built 16 years after the Trident II, the JL-2 may have been designed with improved lightweight (e.g. composite) materials and/or been lavished with a lot more supercomputer time on its design.

A fourth possible explanation is that the JL-2 has only two stages, instead of the three stages for the Trident II. "Such design simplifies the structure of the missile and largely reduces missile's overall weight by reducing one stage." (See newslink below)

I selected Wikipedia as a source because I wanted to quote that two Type 094 submarines have been "confirmed to be launched" and the "United States government has expressed concern over these submarines, saying that the Chinese government has not been transparent enough about the program." Feel free to adjust the JL-2 range downward to "11000-12000 km" to match the Trident II's range.

"In late 1980s and 1990s, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering named Wang Zhenhua (王振华) proposed a new theory typically for the JL-2 SLBM, called "(Free) Relaxation into Trajectory" (自由入轨).

Based on this theory, JL-2 only needs two stages to achieve its intercontinental status instead of three. Conventionally, any type of ICBMs has three phases to finish its flight: (i) the boost phase, (ii) the mid-course phase, and (iii) the terminal phase. Wang's idea is to combine the first and the second phases into one, the passive-boost phase (助推段). Plus the final atmospheric reentry phase, therefore, in total the JL-2's trajectory only has two phases and two stages.

The first phase is based on the first solid-fueled rocket engine (first stage). The first stage passively launches the missile out of the atmosphere, and accelerates it into a speed in between the first (7.9 km/s) and second (11.2 km/s) escape velocities. When the missile is in this transition state, the first stage booster sheds off, and the missile automatically adapts its "free" trajectory and further reaches its maximium altitude (without a constant velocity); the dominating force here is just the earth's gravity. The second stage engine (liquid-fueled) then starts working.

Normally, SLBM has three stages. Such design simplifies the structure of the missile and largely reduces missile's overall weight by reducing one stage. Additionally, it increases the atmospheric reentry velocity, which leads to more difficult interception, such as, by the NMD."

Estimated range of 14,000 km for the JL-2 is at the upper range of estimates, but it is still close to the 12,000 km range for the Trident II. The extra 2,000 km may be explained by a slightly bigger JL-2 missile or arming the missile with a smaller warhead to reduce the weight.

A third possible explanation is that, since the JL-2 was built 16 years after the Trident II, the JL-2 may have been designed with improved lightweight (e.g. composite) materials and/or been lavished with a lot more supercomputer time on its design.

A fourth possible explanation is that the JL-2 has only two stages, instead of the three stages for the Trident II. "Such design simplifies the structure of the missile and largely reduces missile's overall weight by reducing one stage." (See newslink below)

I selected Wikipedia as a source because I wanted to quote that two Type 094 submarines have been "confirmed to be launched" and the "United States government has expressed concern over these submarines, saying that the Chinese government has not been transparent enough about the program." Feel free to adjust the JL-2 range downward to "11000-12000 km" to match the Trident II's range.

"In late 1980s and 1990s, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering named Wang Zhenhua (王振华) proposed a new theory typically for the JL-2 SLBM, called "(Free) Relaxation into Trajectory" (自由入轨).

Based on this theory, JL-2 only needs two stages to achieve its intercontinental status instead of three. Conventionally, any type of ICBMs has three phases to finish its flight: (i) the boost phase, (ii) the mid-course phase, and (iii) the terminal phase. Wang's idea is to combine the first and the second phases into one, the passive-boost phase (助推段). Plus the final atmospheric reentry phase, therefore, in total the JL-2's trajectory only has two phases and two stages.

The first phase is based on the first solid-fueled rocket engine (first stage). The first stage passively launches the missile out of the atmosphere, and accelerates it into a speed in between the first (7.9 km/s) and second (11.2 km/s) escape velocities. When the missile is in this transition state, the first stage booster sheds off, and the missile automatically adapts its "free" trajectory and further reaches its maximium altitude (without a constant velocity); the dominating force here is just the earth's gravity. The second stage engine (liquid-fueled) then starts working.

Normally, SLBM has three stages. Such design simplifies the structure of the missile and largely reduces missile's overall weight by reducing one stage. Additionally, it increases the atmospheric reentry velocity, which leads to more difficult interception, such as, by the NMD."

The range of Trident II with full payload is around 7500km. I think the advanced version of JL-2 or JL-2A should be similar.

Considering that Trident II was designed in the late 1980s, so today's China should be able to come up with something comparable as being 20 years behind in the overall military technology.

Estimated range of 14,000 km for the JL-2 is at the upper range of estimates, but it is still close to the 12,000 km range for the Trident II. The extra 2,000 km may be explained by a slightly bigger JL-2 missile or arming the missile with a smaller warhead to reduce the weight.

A third possible explanation is that, since the JL-2 was built 16 years after the Trident II, the JL-2 may have been designed with improved lightweight (e.g. composite) materials and/or been lavished with a lot more supercomputer time on its design.

A fourth possible explanation is that the JL-2 has only two stages, instead of the three stages for the Trident II. "Such design simplifies the structure of the missile and largely reduces missile's overall weight by reducing one stage." (See newslink below)

I selected Wikipedia as a source because I wanted to quote that two Type 094 submarines have been "confirmed to be launched" and the "United States government has expressed concern over these submarines, saying that the Chinese government has not been transparent enough about the program." Feel free to adjust the JL-2 range downward to "11000-12000 km" to match the Trident II's range.

"In late 1980s and 1990s, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering named Wang Zhenhua (王振华) proposed a new theory typically for the JL-2 SLBM, called "(Free) Relaxation into Trajectory" (自由入轨).

Based on this theory, JL-2 only needs two stages to achieve its intercontinental status instead of three. Conventionally, any type of ICBMs has three phases to finish its flight: (i) the boost phase, (ii) the mid-course phase, and (iii) the terminal phase. Wang's idea is to combine the first and the second phases into one, the passive-boost phase (助推段). Plus the final atmospheric reentry phase, therefore, in total the JL-2's trajectory only has two phases and two stages.

The first phase is based on the first solid-fueled rocket engine (first stage). The first stage passively launches the missile out of the atmosphere, and accelerates it into a speed in between the first (7.9 km/s) and second (11.2 km/s) escape velocities. When the missile is in this transition state, the first stage booster sheds off, and the missile automatically adapts its "free" trajectory and further reaches its maximium altitude (without a constant velocity); the dominating force here is just the earth's gravity. The second stage engine (liquid-fueled) then starts working.

Normally, SLBM has three stages. Such design simplifies the structure of the missile and largely reduces missile's overall weight by reducing one stage. Additionally, it increases the atmospheric reentry velocity, which leads to more difficult interception, such as, by the NMD."

Are the JL-2 Mod 2 & 3 operationally verified systems? That JL-2 mod 2 has an awfully long range for a 2-stage ICBM that can hold up to 10 warheads. These sound like far superior delivery systems, even when compared against similarly sized ICBMs in the American and Russian inventories. I'll be doing some research into this. These technology advances by China cannot possibly be moving as fast as this, given all the technology sanctions China has been under for decades now. I'll admit, I have some bias against China here. Will be doing some research into this, these stories seem to be getting more numerous and conflict with others I've been reading.

Are the JL-2 Mod 2 & 3 operationally verified systems? These sound like superior delivery systems, even when compared against similarly sized ICBMs in the American and Russian inventories. I'll be doing some research into this. These technology advances by China cannot possibly be moving as fast as this, given all the technology sanctions China has been under for decades now. I'll be doing some research into this, these stories seem to be getting more numerous and conflict with others I've been reading.

Please stop mentioning Russia, since the collapse of USSR they haven't made any improvement yet. Borei class and Bulava was a huge failure compared to their predecessor the Typhoon class.

"The Trident D-5 has a maximum range of 12,000 km (7,456 miles), similar to that of silo-based systems, and has a payload as large as 2,800 kg. Its payload carries a Post-Boost Vehicle (PBV) which can carry 8 to 12 Reentry Vehicles (RVs), though the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) limits the number to eight. These RVs can either be the Mk 4 with a W76 100 kT yield warhead or the Mk 5, which has a W88 475 kT yield warhead. The missile is almost certainly equipped with countermeasures. The system uses an inertial navigation system combined with a stellar reference system that provides an extremely high accuracy of 90 m CEP. The missile has a length of 13.42 m, a width of 2.11 m, and a launch weight of 59,090 kg. It uses a three-stage solid propellant engine."

"According to American experts, the JL-2, like China's intercontinental surface-to-surface Dongfeng-31 (DF-31), tested successfully this summer, is equipped with technology adapted from the Trident D-5." See China Prepares To Test New ICBM

Beijing (AFP) December 7, 1999 - China will imminently test the Julang 2, an intercontinental sea-to-surface ballistic missile with an estimated range at least 9,000 kilometres (5580 miles) that will boost its nuclear deterent capability, foreign military experts in Beijing said Tuesday.

"The test is imminent," said an expert who asked to not be named, but added the missile, capable of hitting any city in the United States and Europe, could be equipped with a small nuclear warhead.

According to Monday's Washington Times newspaper, the transit of Chinese Golf class submarines from southern areas to the north of the country, carried out last month, signals the approach of the JL-2 test.

The newspaper also put the range of the Jl-2 at nearly 12,000 kilometres.

China's Foreign Ministry downplayed the report Tuesday, and said China was entitled to develop military programs for its own defence, dismissing talk of a "China threat"."

Beijing (AFP) December 7, 1999 - China will imminently test the Julang 2, an intercontinental sea-to-surface ballistic missile with an estimated range at least 9,000 kilometres (5580 miles) that will boost its nuclear deterent capability, foreign military experts in Beijing said Tuesday.

"The test is imminent," said an expert who asked to not be named, but added the missile, capable of hitting any city in the United States and Europe, could be equipped with a small nuclear warhead.

According to Monday's Washington Times newspaper, the transit of Chinese Golf class submarines from southern areas to the north of the country, carried out last month, signals the approach of the JL-2 test.

The newspaper also put the range of the Jl-2 at nearly 12,000 kilometres.

China's Foreign Ministry downplayed the report Tuesday, and said China was entitled to develop military programs for its own defence, dismissing talk of a "China threat"."

But some Western Military think-tanks refuse to believe that China has anything comparable to USA.

And they believe Type 094 is even noisier than the 1970s Soviet SSBN and can't even hit Seattle.